Luigi Donatello Asero said:
So you are against electronic identification cards, aren?t you?
Yes. Absolutely.
If the government has a legitimate reason to conduct surveillance of my
activities, they can explain it to a judge and get his approval. Never
mind for a moment that such requests are very, very rarely denied in
this country -- it's at least good that it's a bother, one that would
take them away from their donuts and bull sessions.
I speak from experience when I say that law enforcement agencies are
quick to invade our privacy. They do it all the time, and know that if
they want to use the information they've found in court they'll have to
get a warrant and rediscover it under the guise of legitimacy. In a
former career, those three letter agencies were among my clients and
their computer rooms were opened to me. I've met those guys who pound
the keyboards, and listened carefully while they talked.
One's rights are not defended by giving government all of the personal
information they might ask for. There is absolutely no truth in "an
honest man has nothing to hide." In order to maintain civil rights, a
benevolent government must always be challenged by an adversarial
citizenry. That's precisely what the US Constitution established --
and we've essentially thrown it away.
It's not uncommon in the US for a class of law students to be assigned
to review a questionable case in which the defendant was convicted and
sentenced to death. It's also not uncommon for them to do the work that
leads to the release of an innocent man from death row, usually in
cases in which an overzealous prosecutor took advantage of fabricated
evidence provided by law enforcement, coupled with circumstantial
evidence. That circumstantial evidence just happens to be lying around
everywhere, all the time, and could tie any one of us to a crime that
was committed while we were not in the presence of impeccable witnesses.
Hmmm... a liquor store was burglarized. Let's get the records out and
see who used the ATM at the bank down the street at about that time.
Oh, look, this guy's account was overdrawn. Look at that... he couldn't
get any money out of the machine, but he paid that past due electric
bill an hour before the power was to be cut off. Gee, pal, where'd ya
get the money? (Meanwhile, the burglar who was just passing through the
town is sipping Jack Daniel's as he drives on, fuel in the tank
courtesy of the liquor store's daily receipts -- he didn't use his
national ID card anywhere within the state in which the burglary took
place, so no one even knew he was there.)
But could one not use them to buy and sell on the internet?
One could also use a shotgun to knock the flies off of the windowsill
without having to get off of the sofa.
That means, people could still enter e website without it but if they would
decide to
buy something, then they would need use a card.
I'm opposed to this, and I've been doing e-commerce for years.
How can we reach a safe e-commerce otherwise?
It seems pretty safe to me today. The occasional fraudulent card
transaction occurs, it's true, but that risk exists in the real world,
too. I've yet to have a retailer ask me to provide identification to go
along with my credit card during a card-present transaction. I've used
other people's cards (with their permission, of course) several times.
It would be nicer for the customers if the use of softwares were without any
limitation but what do other companies offer to his or her customers
for its software?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question, but I'd probably do my best
to address it if I did. Care to rephrase it for my poor feeble mind?